Leatherwood v. Medco Health Solutions of Columbus
2013 Ohio 4780
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jo Leatherwood, a Medco employee and Medco being self-insured, suffered a work injury to her right knee in 2005; the Industrial Commission refused fund participation for aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis.
- Leatherwood filed multiple trial-court actions challenging commission denials: an osteoarthritis claim was tried to a jury in 2010 which found against her; she separately sought allowance for patella subluxation before the commission and in court but voluntarily dismissed one of those cases.
- She refiled a complaint alleging aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis; Medco moved for summary judgment asserting res judicata based on the prior jury verdict on osteoarthritis.
- After Medco’s summary-judgment motion, Leatherwood moved for leave to amend her complaint to allege patella subluxation instead, claiming the original pleading named the wrong condition.
- The trial court denied leave to amend because the motion came after summary-judgment briefing, was filed nine months after the complaint, the discovery cutoff had passed and trial was imminent, and Leatherwood’s later discovery responses still identified osteoarthritis — and then granted summary judgment on res judicata grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend complaint after summary-judgment motion | Leatherwood: amendment corrects an obvious mistake; Medco had notice and would not be prejudiced | Medco: amendment comes late, after summary-judgment, would prejudice by disrupting discovery and trial schedule | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; delay and prejudice supported denial |
| Whether summary judgment for Medco was improper because genuine issues remain | Leatherwood: court should have allowed amendment to proceed to trial on patella subluxation; factual issues exist | Medco: res judicata bars relitigation of osteoarthritis claim; summary judgment appropriate | Summary judgment affirmed — res judicata bars the pleaded osteoarthritis claim and amendment was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Csejpes v. Cleveland Catholic Diocese, 109 Ohio App.3d 533 (8th Dist. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of leave to amend)
- Wilmington Steel Prods., Inc. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1991) (standards referenced concerning trial-court discretion)
- Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (Civ.R. 15(A) favors liberal amendment absent bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (standard for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- McKay v. Cutlip, 80 Ohio App.3d 487 (9th Dist. 1992) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s and nonmovant’s burdens in summary-judgment practice)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (nonmoving party cannot rest on pleadings to avoid summary judgment)